edit: not sure why this is getting down voted, it would be interesting to see a counterpoint.
I'm not confident that's a factual statement.
But "only used for music you don't own" isn't the same the same thing as "dead".
Netflix doesn't let you keep the movies you watch either.
Both are DRMed because thats how the company keeps you subscribing to their services.
The way you beat an incumbent leader is by changing the rules of the games so it's very hard for that company to play that new game, whether it's because they lack the competency or because the have internal conflicts of interest for doing that (think of the TV networks not really wanting to go full-web because it would eat into their much larger profits from traditional advertising).
Of course you don't just change the rules for the sake of changing the. This new game must also feel like the "future" of that market, and you need to be able to attract not only Hollywood "non-consumption", but also be able to transition Hollywood's "consumers" over time to your company (or companies - I still think that what would kill Hollywood is an entire different ecosystem for creating, distributing and watching movie, and not just a movie juggernaut like Hollywood).
Displacing the influence of the old leader in the community mindset is certainly a known problem and one that we've seen in other sectors. But, there's no disputing it - the kids are spending their time playing games rather more than watching films, and Hollywood isn't set up to produce interactive, dynamic content.
The rules of the game have been changed, and tech has won. Gaming beats films, and sooner or later people will realise it.
The console market isn't making the transition nearly as quickly, but I'm certain this is chiefly a matter of getting value out of existing investments (deployed hardware).
1. Just because this is the way things work doesn't mean this is the only way things can work.
2. We aren't entitled to have Dark Knights and Avatars. Lets assume that, for whatever reason, in New Hollywood it will only be feasible to fund smaller budget movies. So what? People will still watch and enjoy the smaller-budget movies.
That is true, but the current reality is: these are the current cost to make big budget films, just like I would like buy a brand new Mac Book Pro for $500.00 but that's not going to happen any time soon.
And yes we are not entitled to have Dark Knights and Avatars, we did not always have big budget films. Big budget films are the only advantage Hollywood has, if it were not for these big budget films we would not be talking about Hollywood.
The reality is people want to watch some of these big budget films, that's why there is piracy, that's why we writing about it.
The price of movie distribution is fast approaching zero. If big budget movies had to compete on a level playing field, I suspect they would rapidly become unprofitable.
If you believe low-budget is the way of the future, nothing is stopping you. If you believe big-budget needs to be killed by regulation et al before your superior low-budget future can compete, I wonder if you have things mixed up in your head.
Feedback to advertisers will increase relevant ad pool to make better matches from ticket purchases. Advertisers get more data to target their ads to a better audience. G+ profile gets more data for profiling. Win win win. ;)
Your comment is somewhat ridiculous because these examples are not risks. Christopher Nolan was well known before Batman Begins in writing Memento. James Cameron wrote the script for the original Terminator and directed Aliens, T2 and the highest grossing film of all time in Titanic. Anyone would've bet on these two individuals.
You're going to need to elaborate on that, because on the face it, this sounds absurd.
I'd argue that this is turning the thing on its head. The Hollywood crowd overcharges from the position of a quasi monopoly that is protected by IP and copyright laws in most places of the world. They dictate the prices and are therefor able to sustain the costs of having to pay ridiculous (you can argue, but there's no way in hell I change my pov on this one) amounts of money to single persons for 'a project'.
Take away the quasi monopoly and yes, dear god: 200million+ might be a tad too much. But the market will adapt and we'll find awesome actors that are happy to do that job for 300.000 USD per year. Or less. No idea - let's find out.
The same principle applies in other jobs, the values are just much smaller.
That's $55,000 a minute, versus $1,462,962 a minute for Avatar. An order of magnitude difference. Each minute of Avatar cost nearly as much as a small episode of Mad Men.
That's exactly the kind of feature a shrunken Hollywood, not focused on blockbuster hits, might produce.
Your comment seems to have nothing at all to do with the link.
Good writing, good acting, good cinematography, are all pretty cheap, relatively speaking.
Until Bieber came along, the most watched clip ever (Charlie bit my finger), having been seen 100 of millions of times cost a few cents of electricity to produce.
This indicates that there is an entire market out there which Hollywood is incapable of satisfying but which could easily be filled by a start up.
Having said that there are a load of genuinely quite funny and well put together pieces of content on youtube that come from amateurs. Problem is most of them distribute the content for free because they want to use it as a stepping stone to a job with BigMediaCo who can pay them $$$.
More so, the limits of independently funding a movie are not necassarily any lower than what Hollywood can provide. It's just that Hollywood has historically proven to be the easiest route so it has been popular, but who's to say what the limits of competition are? VCs have pumped more money into tech startups for less return than some hollywood big budget movies, for example.
The effect you mention with effects houses, big-name-actors, etc. charging lots of up-front fees to compensate for the fact that the studio would try to screw them out of their cut of the profits sounds surprisingly similar to the health care situation in the US. Hospitals charge patients that they know can pay (private or gov't insured) much higher fees, because they know there are many, many patients who will not. There's also different affects related to which insurers are willing to pay which rates, etc.
The permit process is absolutely ridiculous in some cities. Also, unless you're shooting on your backlot, location fees are getting astronomical. Everybody and their dog thinks that their property is worth thousands of dollars a day to film.
I think we'll start seeing more and more stuff being shot outside of the greater LA area.
Where did you ever see such a thing as a perfect market entity? In the wonderful magical Hollywood kingdom where you can't watch the DVD you bought in Europe back in the US, certainly not.
If Hollywood execs had to sit through 5 minutes of ads to use Google they'd soon get the message.
Anyone have any ideas on how to get the IP blocks of MPAA member companies? Is there anything better than just whois'ing every class A/B/C?
Simple one line addition to your site and voila your startup/site/blog is Hollywood Edition.
It's been tried before. Maintaining the list is very difficult for the exact same reasons that would have made PIPA/SOPA technically inept.
The author cites perfect examples of why the software industry is exactly like Hollywood with its products. Word? Need a license key. Can't open or save ODT files without annoying popups. Apple? Don't even try to partition the system or it will break, and don't use the software on non-Apple hardware. Certainly don't try jailbreaking it. Google? Can we talk about privacy policies?
Of course, the biggest problem is that none of those instances of software are even accessible (fully) by their users. The user can't change the software, they can't even use the software in every capacity.
So I guess the real question is, why are we still acting like Hollywood?
Could you explain that? I've been jailbreaking for, maybe five years now, and it's very easy. And I think Google's new privacy policies are an improvement over the old.
Maybe that's your point, but I'm not sure what you're getting at.
And jailbreaking Apple devices, while possible and, in some cases, easy, has never been encouraged by or even considered by Apple. In order to jailbreak, you have to find exploits in the software. This is opposed to free software, where you are able to do anything you want with the phone's software from the start--no exploits, no jailbreaking, just freedom.
Apple trying to assert DMCA against jailbreaking phones is a great example. It's YOUR phone. You paid $600 for it (either over time, or up front). You should be able to do whatever you want with it.
You've made a very poor case with Google privacy policies, though. If you don't use Google+, there's no way for any of its privacy policies to affect you. If you don't like their policies, don't use their free product. Period.
And then when they stop using our service we'll say it must be because they're doing something illegal.
Well, unfortunately we know that you can't get it over 3G or 4G because you're outside the reception area and we've encrypted KWIK24 to be received by people in LA only on Fibre or ADSL.
KOSA13 might have 30 second ads before each article, doesn't carry half of the most popular articles and re-compresses every image with a watermark, but that's not our problem.
Good luck, however, winning in court to enforce your license.
Oh, and while the DMCA requires DRM to be "effective", that has proved to be a low bar.
More seriously, EULA case results are mixed, and Wikipedia's somewhat sarcastic first sentence of that section as I write this is broadly correct: "The enforceability of an EULA depends on several factors, one of them being the court in which the case is heard." Maybe there's some other legal doctrine about contracts that would knock this out, but it's not immediately obvious to me that this couldn't be done. (Not that it will, of course.)
I think the "effective" in "No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title." probably means something more like "has the intended effect of" rather than "does a good job at."
The stronger the anti-misappropriation measures of copyright law, the stronger the sharing (and compulsory re-licensing) provisions of the GPL.
Playing other legal regimens against themselves in a similar fashion is a creative and often effective strategy.
Whatever that black popdown thing is called is really, really obnoxious.
Here is what it looks like in my browser: http://imgur.com/cKiYN
Chrome 16.0.9 on Snow Leopard.
The problem is that it covers text as I'm scrolling through the page.
To recreate it: start scrolling down the page.
You want to know how to fix things?
Stop buying what they sell.
The content companies do believe they are God's gift to mankind and they have some very anti-customer policies. They think they are optimizing their revenue from such policies.
I think they underestimate the kind of growth they could see if they started treating their customers the way that most of the tech industry does.
Tech is far from perfect, but it does a better job of being customer centric.
I'm not convinced that they are. I'm sure that an audit of Hollywood software licensing would find many unlicensed copied (their word "stolen") bits of software.
The thinking is that a product is far more profitable and has higher gains than a service which bleeds money by comparison due to it's constant maintenance costs, upkeep and customer care and that drop in profit would make their pyramid business model unsustainable.
Every developer from this point onward adds a licensing clause for holywood execs - if that product is showcased during the movie a certain amount is owed to the developer at this point. Start putting it in every single app they will start making mistakes.
The other day I saw Open Office 2.0 in Girl with Dragon Tattoo - Libre office could easily add this clause.
That clause is incompatible with the LGPL, and Libre Office doesn't do copyright assignment, so there are many copyright holders, all of whom would have to agree to the licensing change. Not so easy.
To everyone taking this seriously, please remember, variously, "two wrongs don't make a right", the "golden rule" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Golden_Rule), "don't stoop to their level", etc.
Hollywood´s not the problem. Your government is.
 Hilary Clinton Admits US Is Losing The "Information War": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMoeDaLV2WA
It's like a Hollywood movie, about a beast (or robot) which ends up overpowering its master.